ARCHIVED - Archiving Content ARCHIVÉE - Contenu archivé

Archived Content

Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

Contenu archivé

L’information dont il est indiqué qu’elle est archivée est fournie à des fins de référence, de recherche ou de tenue de documents. Elle n’est pas assujettie aux normes Web du gouvernement du Canada et elle n’a pas été modifiée ou mise à jour depuis son archivage. Pour obtenir cette information dans un autre format, veuillez communiquer avec nous.

This document is archival in nature and is intended for those who wish to consult archival documents made available from the collection of Public Safety Canada. Some of these documents are available in only one official language. Translation, to be provided by Public Safety Canada, is available upon request.

Le présent document a une valeur archivistique et fait partie des documents d’archives rendus disponibles par Sécurité publique Canada à ceux qui souhaitent consulter ces documents issus de sa collection. Certains de ces documents ne sont disponibles que dans une langue officielle. Sécurité publique Canada fournira une traduction sur demande.

Service correctionnel Correctional Service Canada Canada

PROGRAMMING FOR LONG-TERM INMATES:

A new Perspective

1-1V 8708 P3p 1984 c.3

Psychological Services Division Offender Programs Branch

CanadU

1

PROGRAMMING FOR LONG-TERM INMATES:

A new Perspective

‘:)çnpo 2,00■12,e

%We obese%

eito io

Le$ ede

bVéseeeeeeeegeee

'ae'lee4\4"eeee"\I °*‘\ ' .'\'-eeeeezeeleVeabee\05Weg.

Wee

Psychological Services Division Offender Programs Branch

'70e;

r')

fc7 e

C, `•-•

/// PROGRAMMING FOR LONG—TERM INMATES:

A New Perspective/

William R. T.,Palmer

•■•

Paper submitted to the Canadian Journal of Criminology, Special Edition on Long—Terni Inmates. August 18, 1984.

,tmegsiewremsteemaaeme.mearee.sesoegrag

LISnARY MINISTRY OF THE SOLICITOR

GENERAL OF CANADA

JAN 5 1909

MINISTEPE DU ,OITEUR GENERAL CD L-- • 'IDA

OTTAWA, .O CANADA KiA

I The author has been a Psychologist on staff at Warkworth Institution since February, 1975. He has been the staff member involved with the LifeServers group since its inception in mid-1976. The opinions expressed in this paper are his own. They do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Ministry of the Solicitor General for Canada.

William R. Palmer, Psychologist, The Correctional Service of Canada, Warkworth Institution, Post Office Box 760, Campbellford, Ontario, Canada. KOL 1L0

ABSTRACT

The article summarizes a group program called LifeServers which

has operated continuously at Warkworth Institution since mid-1976

specifically for long-term inmates. Included is a description of

the program and an assessment of its usefulness. There is a

discussion of case management procedures designed to assist

long-term inmates to maintain senses of purposefulness and hope

while avoiding the twin problems of institutionalization and

prisonization. The paper concludes with a number of specific

suggestions on the organization, architectural form and

psychosocial milieu of the discrete units proposed for the

housing of long-term inmates.

It is a paradox that the best adjusted residents of our

penitentiaries are often those serving the longest terms, whose

instant offenses are the most heinous, who are perceived by

citizens as presenting the greatest risk, and for whom public

approval for leniency is least available [i.e., 1; 6; 24; 25].

Further, prison programs are typically designed for inmates

spending one to three years incarcerated; thus, those least

problematical seem also to be least rewarded with relevant

programs. The present paper reports an alternative, a group

program called LifeServers which has operated since 1976 at

Warkworth Institution particularly for long-term inmates. Also

discussed will be some of the practices and procedures which the

inst itutions case management teams have evolved in relation to

members of this group. Finally, there will be comments offered

in regard to a number of long-term inmate issues which reflect

our experience over the years with the program's participants.

Much that follows is based upon the beliefs that prison sentences

generally, and long-term sentences in particular, are likely to

remain features of the Canadian Justice System - and that the

appropriate role of corrections must involve attempts to deal

effectively within the framework of the existing law. Acceptance

of these premises does not necessarily represent endorsement of

the policy of long-term incarceration; it does, however, lead to

1

2

a call for action on behalf of the affected prisoners.

Since 1976 Warkworth has housed approximately 170 individuals

serving life or indefinite terms who have been eligible for group

membership. Thirty-one were involved initially and are the

primary subject of this report. As of June 1, 1983, all but

three of the original members had been transferred or paroled.

We currently house 66 such individuals, approximately

three-quarters of whom have some involvement in the program.

To put the penitentiary in context, Warkworth is a medium

security 'living unit institution. Within the constraints of a

secure setting, the organizational model attempts to encourage

inmates to learn social skills, to develop responsibility and to

accept social restrictions. Staff are deployed and administered

on an integrated team basis with each group working consistently

with a constant group of inmates. In comparison to other

penitentiaries in Ontario, Warkworth has historically been a

relatively program-oriented institution, especially so during the

formative years of the program described here. Programs and

security continue, as in the past, to coexist with minimal

friction. The institution is located in rural eastern Ontario,

midway between Toronto and Kingston. The inmates number slightly

under 600. We have a staff complement of approximately 290.

THE ORIGINAL PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS

As mentioned above there were 31 charter members of the

3

LifeServers group. Their average age was slightly over 31 years,

ranging from 20 to 58. An interesting subgroup of six had

received their life sentences prior to their 18th birthdây§k

Each of these young inmates had gone directly from the social

role of 'dependent adolescent', living within his own family, to

the role of 'inmate without any intervening status or period of

independence. Approximately two-thirds of the original group

(20), including all of the young inmates, were first-time

offenders. The remaining 11 had criminal convictions and/or

incarcerations prior to the sentences which they were serving in

1976. All had begun their sentences in other institutions,

having then transferred to Warkworth prior to this project's

initiation. On average, they had served just under three years

within Warkworth, two months being the minimum and ranging up to

seven years, three months. Nine of the initial 31 had been

admitted to the institution within the 12 months previous.

Of the 31, two were serving life-minimum commuted capital

sentences. Twenty-five were serving life-minimum sentences for

noncapital murder. The other four were serving life as a maximum

punishment; two for importing narcotics, one for rape and one

for kidnapping. Those whose life sentences were automatic, i.e.,

life as a minimum punishment, were required by law to serve at

least 10 years before being eligible for parole. The four whose

life sentences represented maximum punishment were eligible for

parole after seven years. Three years prior to their eligibility

4

for parole, all were eligible for day—parole which is a form of

conditional release requiring nightly residence in nithâr â

penitentiary or a community correctional centre. At th ê time thg

program was initiated 23 of the 31 men were already eligible for

short, unescorted, pass—type releases from close confinement.

This privilege had been granted only to five of the eligible 23.

It is noteworthy that one—third of the charter members (10) were

housed on one range with a capacity of 17. The remaining 21 were

distributed throughout the remaining 23 ranges of the

institution. The range which housed those 10 long—term inmates

had the reputation of being the 'best in the prison in the sense

that it was quiet and trouble—free. The inmates reputedly

granted more respect to other inmates' rights than was typical on

other units. The residents of that range also tended to be more

supportive of each other than was general throughout the prison.

CURRENT STATUS OF ORIGINAL PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS

As of June 1st, 1983, 27 of the original 31 inmates had been

released into the community for periods ranging from three months

to six and one—half years. The majority had been on parole for

more than two years. Of the four not then released three were

on prerelease programs, two of these within Warkworth and one

while housed in a minimum security institution. The single

remaining inmate continued to serve time at Warkworth, not having

been granted any type of prerelease program despite having been

eligible for such privileges for several years.

5

Figure I illustrates the four different program routes utilized

by the 28 individuals discharged. One individual transferred as

a result of security concerns was still serving hi§ m3eêfi6@:

Thus, 27 of the original • roup had been released into the

community. Twenty-five of these were maintaining acceptable

adjustments. Two had been reincarcerated; the first as a result

of a drug-related charge after four years on parole, the second

as a result of a conviction for theft after two years on parole.

Insert Figure I about here.

During the past 10 years there have been 308 individuals granted

parole while serving life sentences in Canada and their average

length of time to first release has been 11.96 years

[extrapolated from 13 1. The modal time served by those in the

LifeServers program has been nine years. An 'eyeball comparison

of the data strongly suggests that the success-rate of those

released in nine years versus those released in 12 years is

virtually identical. The national revocation-rate for new

offenses - no subsequent murders - was 6.5% [13]. The Warkworth

revocation-rate for new offenses - obviously also without

subsequent murders - was 7.7Z. Given the size of our sample it

is impossible to more closely approximate the national statistic.

THE LIFESERVERS PROGRAM

Formal Programs Elements

The LifeServers group operates under a constitution approved by

On Pre-Release Programs in Warkworth Institution Remain at W.I.

Released and maintaining satisfactory adjustment Transferred to 13

Minimum Security Released and Reincarcerated after 2 years (Property Crime)

1

Released and maintaining

Released and Reincarcerated

Satisfactory Adjustment

1

Released from W.I.

after 4 years (Drug Offense)

Security Transfers

Program Transfers to Medium Security

satisfactory adjustment

Pre-Release Program in Minimum Security

Released and maintaining satisfactory adj ustment

Released and maintaini

1

31 1 Warkworth Institution No_program; Remains at

FIGURE I

Program Routes and Disposition of Thirty-one Original Members of LifeServers

••■

6

the institutional administration which states, in part, that,

It shall be the goal of the LifeServers to initiate, develop and maintain community programs or projects which will serve to contribute to the mutual benefit of the LifeServers, our own community and the community at large. Membership is open to all residents of the population serving life sentences. The group meets twice monthly for general meetings. There is an executive committee. Additionally, all group programs or functions will be administered by subcommittees of members who have special interests in those projects.

The reader will note the similarities of the group's goals,

purposes and organization to those generally found in community

service clubs. The purpose is not overtly therapeutic, though

such is clearly legitimized for any subgroup which chooses to

pursue goals of personal development. Generally, the group is

best construed as providing a framework within which individual

members can find assistance in achieving the legitimate goals

which they establish for themselves. Such goals include personal

growth, service to others and service to the group membership.

Some LifeServers projects happen on a regular, ongoing basis

with the group providing organizational support to ensure that

they remain continuous. Other projects tend to rely on the

presence of given individuals with specific interests. Such

latter projects tend to be organized and/or funded by the

LifeServers throughout the duration of a key individual's

participation, ending when that individual is transferred or

paroled. For example, for several years the LifeServers

organized and funded a 'jogging' program in conjunction with the

I

7

institutions Recreation Department. Interested inmates were

provided with assistance and advice on training routines, diet,

Five successively longer distance rune were

organized on weekends throughout the spring and summer months.

The group organized the events, publicized them, provided lap

scoring and timing and rewarded all runners with trophies or

prizes. Despite being a successful program involving literglly

scores of inmates over a span of several years, the program was

returned to the Recreation Department when the key individual in

LifeServers was paroled. In some sense then, the LifeServers

were providing support to one of their own. That specific

individual made meaning of his sentence by encouraging fitness in

others. The group's commitment was to his attempt to derive

value from his sentence rather than to jogging Ler se.

In terms of continuous programs, the LifeServers run quarterly

sales of confections as a way of raising revenue. They also sell

candy and soft drinks at the weekly movies though the profits

from these sales are committed entirely to the support of

international foster children. The group organizes and provides

trophies and prizes for an annual baseball tournament. Similar

services are provided on an occasional basis for such activities

as billiards, bridge and volleyball. The group also organizes

and funds an annual Inmates Children's Christmas Party which

provides an opportunity for those inmates who are fathers to be

with their children in a party atmosphere and for a traditional

I

shoe—choice, etc.

8

supper each year during the holiday season. _Financial support is

provided to other inmate groups including, for example, the

purchase and donation of an electric typewriter to the

institutions inmate-operated 'Community Information Service'.

Also, for the past two years the group has organized bimonthly

seminars which are open for all interested inmates to attend.

Additionally, at times in the past the group has worked for the

Rotarys Easter Seal campaign, has hand-sewn colours for a local

troup of cub scouts and organized a 'media-day on which local

print, radio and T.V. journalists toured the institution escorted

by LifeServers. Collectively, the members produced the paper

"Sentenced to Life! To Find It or To Endure It?"[1°J. A day

long seminar was organized three years ago on "Vocational

Programs for Long-Term Inmates"; another was held last year on

"Maintaining Community Ties for Long-Term Inmates"[16]. The

group also maintains a dialogue with the National Parole Board

and meetings are held at least yearly with N.P.B. members in

order to clarify issues of special concern to long-term inmates.

Finally, there are always members of the LifeServers who have

interests in personal growth and many have been active in

programs with therapeutic emphases. The Psychology Department

coordinates the group, thus tending to create a special

connection between treatment services and those serving life

sentences. LifeServers members have been especially active in

9

our relaxation training and biofeedback programs, both as clients

and as inmate-technicians. The Psychology Department has run a

number of time-limited group therapy programs over thie y@âni ând

LifeServers have typically been overrepresented in those groups.

At one point several years ago the institution found its

treatment services severely curtailed as a result of fiscal

restraints and staff illness. During that period the LifeServers

organized and partially funded a service contract with a

part-time gestalt therapist. Three hours of group gestalt

training were provided weekly for 12 inmates over several months

funded equally by the institution, the LifeServers group and the

participants themselves. Finally, it is hoped a Toastmasters

subprogram can be added in the future to assist those members who

experience some difficulty in speaking spontaneously. Such

skills are highly valued, especially since each member sees hie

eventual i:elease as being partially dependent upon his ability to

sell himself to the parole board during a series of interviews.

Informal Program Elements

Additionally, a full appreciation of the LifeServers group is not

possible without an understanding of the informal impact of the

group upon its members, particularly insofar as they share common

problems. It was mentioned earlier that a substantial percentage

of the LifeServers are first-time offenders; in prison argot,

they tend to be 'square-johns'. The difficulty of being a square

peg in a rounder's hole is a problem which can find expression in

the context of the group. To illustrate, the long-termer's

10

tendency to refer to his cell as his 'house versus the more

typical use of the term 'drum implies strongly contrasting

cognitions about prison life. Such differencee h4r41!y @§êâpê thë

notice of long-term inmates. Generally, they recognize that they

have different interests than other inmates; consequently, they

tend to be appreciative of a forum in which their interests and

concerns are recognized, shared and legitimized.

Over the years, through discussion, the group has achieved a

fairly sophisticated view of the emotional pressures and changes

experienced by men convicted of violent crimes and sentenced to

long periods in prison. One of the important informal functions

of the group is the transmission of such insights and/or coping

strategies both across individuals and across time. The

collective experience is shared widely. Similarly, the group

encompasses a good deal of what might be called peer-counselling.

When needed, this service may extend as far as supportive

Big-Brother-type relationships established informally. The

insight and support of the group often proves useful to specific

individuals experiencing emotional difficulties at some

particular point in their sentence.

As a start in illustrating the type of belief-systems developed

by the group, one might suggest that everyone achieves his own

perspective. A lawyer-friend of mine refers to the LifeServers

as 'failed defenses to murder'. The police, media and/or public

11

views tend to portray them as violent and ytaniacal threats to

public safety. Correctional officers often see them as

stabilizing influences within prisons. In my role oo

psychologist, I have a tendency to see within the group a high

proportion of individuals who are struggling with feelings of

guilt and depression. Not suprisingly, then, the LifeServers

tend also to have their own self—view, likewise developed as a

function of their unique perspective and circumstances. Most

frequently, they tend to see themselves as individuals who

committed manslaughter and who were subsequently misunderstood in

court and convicted in error of murder. A majority appear to

have entered prison expecting that the appellate courts would

rectify the error and properly sentence them for the lesser

offense. This view appears a function both of self—protective

mechanisms and our adversarial criminal justice system.

To continue, in the cases of most men who are involved in a

homicide, immediately after the event there occurs a need to

create a meaning out of what has happened; further, it appears

highly desirable that this meaning permits the maintenance of

some sense of self—esteem. To fail in this regard is to

absolutely define oneself in the most heinous of terms based

solely on what was undoubtedly the worst moment in one's life.

In most instances the facts of the offense are evident. The

interpretation offered by the police and crown attorney may well

represent the worst of what the confused offender is afraid to

12

believe about himself. At this time and_in . this frame of mind,

the offender is introduced to the justice system - 8 whit@ knight ..,

the defense attorney, the man whose role it is within our

adversarial system to create the most charitable possible

interpretation from the known facts. Given his role, it is

predictable that counsel's interpretation will include

understanding of, and compassion for, the offender himself.

Given the offender's psychological needs, it is hard1y surprining

that he tends to endorse the view espoused by his counsel, then

to forge a strong emotional commitment to the justice system's

benevolent explanation of his acts. Subsequently, when the

defense fails, he feels both misunderstood and the object of a

miscarriage of justice. From a therapeutic point of view, his

conceptualization of the offense is likely to include both

rationalizations and some denial of moral responsibility.

Nonetheless, especially for the first—time offender, there is

some advantage in feeling the victim of a judicial error. It

provides an honest form of hopefulness; that is, that the error

will be corrected by the appeal. Thus, when the man enters

prison to begin his sentence, he does not really believe that the

sentence is for life. He hopes he is simply there temporarily.

He trusts that ultimately the justice system will rectify the

error. Life doesn't become LIFE until two or three years later

when the appeal fails. By this time he knows from experience

that he can survive in prison. A period of mourning for his lost

13

hope and freedom invariably follows. Ideally and ultimately, he

does come to terms with the full impact of hi§

conviction and incarceration. This process, however, is likely

to involve surrendering beliefs and defenses which have protected

him thus far in his journey through the justice system.

In regard to adaptation to prison, the LifeServers have developed

an understanding of the process in terms of Kubler—Ross's [9]

stages of dying. Those who have been through the process

understand what the new lifer experiences and endures. They tend

not to confront, but rather to be supportive as he experiences

his anger and self—pity. Similarly, as he 'bargains by focusing

his hopefulness on the appeal, no one tells him that the majority

of appeals are unsuccessful. When the appeal has failed and the

man needs support through his mourning, his peers are there to

offer it. At the point of acceptance, however, reality is

reimposed. Those who have been through the process earlier

discuss it fully with him and, with their support, he begins to

accept his situation. By this time he is three years or more

into the sentence, which itself has begun to appear at least

manageable; more manageable certainly than it ever could have

appeared on the day that prison gates first closed behind him.

To quote the LifeServers themselves[10]:

That only a lifer can know and help his fellow may soon become as acceptable as 'It takes a thief to catch one'. That we may be the only ones capable of empathy must become our calling and an asset to the Canadian Penitentiary Service. We as lifers may indeed be the

1

14

only ones who can show that to hope and to search is

not only possible, but can lead to fulfillment of our

potentialities; the finding of freedom not to be just enduring life, but finding it.

The Development of Inmate/Institution Cooperative Case Management

In illustrating the coping strategies developed and transmitted

by the LifeServers, it will be useful to understand the

'time-framing of sentences. As the belief developed that it

took three to four years to come to terms with the offense,

conviction and sentence, the group also developed a concomitant

belief that planning for one's future should begin as soon as one

had resolved the issues of the past. Prior to 1976, most case

management officers at Warkworth believed that "with a lifer,

there was no need to be concerned about him until a year prior to

his parole eligibility date". The group, assisted by one

particular classification officer, was successful in

substantially moderating that viewpoint. Clearly, the staff were

prepared to adopt an alternative conception. With their

concurrence, the LifeServers were able to get themselves

reconstrued as having program needs throughout their sentences.

The staffs goals became redefined in such a way that success was

now measured in terms of having each man ready to accept

responsibility at the earliest point in his sentence that he was

eligible for some privilege which would let him demonstrate that

responsibility. The goal becdme one of using the system to fully

prepare the inmates for parole at the earliest possible date.

Sentence time-framing became the norm. The initial three to four

15

years were seen as a time for supportive counselling, the

development of insight, educational preparation for vocational

training, and an emotional acceptance of the off@im i FE

and sentence. Satisfactory progress was typically rewarded with

the beginning of a series of infrequent, brief, escorted passes

into the local community. Successful completion of these, along

with continued acceptable behaviour and progress toward mutually

agreed upon personal, social and/or vocational goals typically

led, within one to two years, to a program of unescorted

temporary absences, generally for up to 72 hours per calendar

quarter. The receipt of the privilege of unescorted temporary

absences seemed to provide some psychological moderation of the

sentence for the inmates. In addition to being tangible evidence

of progression towards eventual release, the unescorted passes

provided something in the immediate future to look forward to.

In some psychological sense, the recipients were now serving a

series of three month 'bits rather than life.

Additionally, there appears to be an element of 'affirmation'

experienced by the inmates at this stage in their progress. In

effect, the society which ostracized them was perceived as once

again acknowledging their humanness and their right to at least

limited freedom. The psychological effect of this reaffirmation

appears to be one of the factors contributing to the virtual 100%

success rate of this particular program element.

16

Assuming 10 years to parole-eligibilitY,_bY_. the time a man had

received two or three unescorted temporary absenseg h@ w@@

typically well onto the downhill side of his sentence. Programs

were highly individualized from this point on depending upon the

needs and goals of the individual inmates. One can, however,

generalize about these individual programs simply by conveying

the idea of gradually increasing privileges/responsibilities.

The major features of 'Time-Framed Sentences are outlined in

Figure II. The steps generally combined into what came to be

called 'prerelease programs' included fence clearance, escorted

and then unescorted temporary absences, transfer to minimum

security, penitentiary-based day-paroles and community

correctional center-based day-paroles, all leading toward full

release. Such releases were only granted for purpose; that is,

purposefulness was required in addition to having met each of the

other program-requirements. Purpose typically included such

things as family-life, personal development programs, education,

vocational training, paid employment, and volunteer involvement

in social, religious or recreational programs. Illustrating the

latter, we have had LifeServers on day-parole actively involved

with Alcoholics Anonymous, Canada JayCees, minors sports

organizations as umpires and referees, antidelinquency and

antidrug counselling for community adolescents, Correctional

Services of Canada public relations, music programs, little

theatre and puppetry for children.

17

Insert Figure II about here.

It can be argued that time-framing permits the maintenance of

hopefulness. It encourages the inmate to sustain his motivation,

his striving for release. It also provides him with tangible

feedback. Making a sentence 'marker confirms he is on schedule.

Missing a sentence 'marker' provides early warning that something

is considered to be amiss. In our system, at least, this

striving is one of the primary features which appears to

distinguish those lifers who serve 'minimum' time from those who

serve substantially more. The payoffs are obvious, both for the

offender and to taxpayers. When handled well, the risk is

minimal. The problems of the process are somewhat more subtle.

Problematrcally, time-framing is generally contradictory to the

values of the traditional inmate subculture. Conventional inmate

belief-systems argue a sentence is best served 'one day at a

time'. Also, negotiating with 'the man' is traditionally not a

highly esteemed behaviour. In the case of a time-framed sentence

the inmate behaves in nontraditional fashion, committing himself

to some mutually agreed upon course of action based upon the

belief that his effort will ultimately be rewarded. The process

requires a level of communication and trust between inmates and

staff which is neither easily achieved nor easily maintained. A

system which encourages positive inmate/staff relationships

11 ME

e4;

e

\\I

JUSTICE SYSTEM PROCESSES

ee o G \\ •

\\\

.\,/ \ \

ej, ek, e -,,,, -‹e.. Al

4..o..co Cb c'.4

'''ee, e/„•

do

0/ 0' .0 e.0 O'

eâ 0 4 eé.

es ei.e

'o losp e, ,e•", ,t, .o

s,,,s, e. e „roe -

? ?

. e.■, e •t% 0, 0

e e>.

5 6 ?

SECURITY PROCESSES

MAXIMUM GAOL SECURITY

MEDIUM/MINIMUM C.C.C. SECURITY MEDIUM SECURITY

PSYCHOLOGI CAL PROCESSES

0 eo "Po o e 4b ""t4

/o. ?,› e c'y e

oe o o 0 e

)■;" ')e on_ ‘9.,".

. A

'?tee 'es n e

* C.C.C. - Community Correctional Center

FIGURE II

Sentence Time-Framing

18

obviously makes the process easier. _Further, there is an

advantage to having an established lifers organigâtion

those inmates who are significantly involved with staff members

are likely to be the object of some mistrust on the part of their

more conventional peers. The group provides both social support

and legitimacy for the action of its members; additionally, it

provides an informal means of communication and confirmation of

the fact that many members are progressing toward release.

Though staff may refer to the process as time-framing, there is a

tendency on the part of inmates to label it a 'head game'. There

exists a tendency on their part to withdraw from the process.

From their point of view, such withdrawal amounts to avoiding the

'head game and resolving to serve 'one day at a time'.

THE DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF MEANING, PURPOSE AND HOPE

Selznick [20] has said, in relation to inmates and the world in

which they live, that:

Men live out their lives in specific settings, and it is there, in the crucible of interaction, that potentialities are sealed off or released. The micro-world is the world of the here-and-now; if an inmate's future is to be affected, that future should have a dynamic, existential connection with the experienced present.

In this context, the time-framing of long prison terms can be

seen to have two distinct objectives; first, it attempts to

assist inmates to develop meaningfulness in their present;

second, it attempts to use this meaning as a bridge to the

19

future, encouraging purposefulness and the maintenance of hope.

These concepts are closely related to what Toeh [21 ] 4114 Flanagâfi

[6] have termed the 'prison career' of the long— term inm3te4

In describing their needs, the LifeServers typically talk about a

search for individuality, dignity, worth, happiness and peace of

mind. They emphasize the need to find personal satisfaction, and

they generally agree that a man must remain active, at the game

time maintaining a clear recognition that the interests and

activities which he develops are for himself; that is, that what

each man engages in, he does because it is intrinsically

interesting and satisfying to him. In discussion, they are able

to present a logical case for the opportunity for long—term

inmates to earn their way into some relatively 'naturalized'

environment, one which permits both sources of personal

satisfaction and avoidance of the characteristic frustrations of

traditional prisons. They see the opportunities to earn, to have

personal possessions, to be relatively free from petty rules and

regulations and to be permitted ways of expressing their

individuality as being the factors which, without compromising

the social purpose of the sentence, could nonetheless make prison

both more humane and tolerable. From the LifeServers' point of

view, a man will be open to his life as long as he can find a

valid reason for being so; when irritants and dissatisfiers

become overwhelming then he will either fight back or withdraw.

Either response leads to his ultimate dehumanization.

20

PROGRAMS FOR LONG-TERM INMATES

As suggested earlier, most prison programs are designed for

inmates who spend one to three years inearemrstod. Th@ @ïffi

'time-framed sentence implies planning much longer sentences.

Toch's [21] 'prison career' of the long-term inmate describes a

similar concept. Flanagan [6] has elaborated, saying:

A new perspective towards the inmate who comes to prison facing a sentence of 10, 15, 20, or more years is needed. It is grossly inappropriate to treat him as we would treat an offender facing 3 years, •...Such a piecemeal approach is not useful with an offender who enters prison at age eighteen and who may not be released until he is nearly 40. ....Given this situation, it is incumbent on the correctional system to work with the offender to plan a worthwhile career, one that will be beneficial to both the offender and others, and that will be transferrable and capable of supporting the offender upon his eventual release.

An example illustrates this career approach to planning programs for the long-term prisoner. An inmate is received in the prison who has a high school education and a desire to enter teaching. The prisoner faces a minimum sentence of 20 years. If the prisoner embarked on a planned course of study leading to undergraduate and graduate degrees, he could become a certified teacher in 4-10 years, depending on his pace of advancement and such other commitments as prison work assignments. The prisoner could then become a prison instructor, and his talents would therefore be reinvested in the program for the period remaining before release. A similar progression can be envisioned for the inmate inclined towards trade training: from student to teacher with other inmates reaping the benefits of the prisoner's experience. The essential difference between the career approach to program planning and the current piecemeal approach is that the goals of the former are long-term. And, as Toch, comments,

'A meaningful career in the prison has the virtue of capitalizing on the long-term inmate's only "real world" •and giving him a useful and meaningful role. Such a role can yield rewards and status, as well as being intrinsically

21

rewarding to the inmate. it can be a role that is

needed by fellow inmates and by staff, and that

offers opportunities for rual teamw9v1 with §tâfÊ members. (Toch, 1977, pg,--r90)

A number of LifeServers have illustrated the 'prison career'

concept, having worked as peer-counsellors, psycho-technicians,

program coordinators and tutors[14]. In some sense, time-framing

may be seen as the curricula of prison careers. Warkworth's

lifer programs have featured such curricula since 1976 and, in

our opinion, they have proven both useful and successful.

The list of potential 'prison careers' need not be limited.

Long-term inmates should be encouraged to qualify for and fill

positions as clerks, accountants, vocational counsellors, health

care assistants, life-skills coaches and lead hands in industrial

shops. Qne might create positions in which inmates would act as

institutional research assistants; for example, monitoring the

environment of the prison and aiding the administration and

inmate committee to identify needs, plan programs, resolve

grievances and advantageously allocate resources. Such a role

might help generally in the reduction of tension within prisons.

Essentially, the process described above involves encouraging

useful elements of adaptation to institutional living while

simultaneously supporting the specific forms of meaning, purpose

and hopefulness which assist inmates to minimize or avoid both

institutionalization and prisonization. Based upon our

22

experience, one would conclude that an environment can be created

which will facilitate mens adaptation to prison, minimizing th @

negative characteristics and behaviour associated with Clêmmar'g

concept of prisonization[2]. The required communication and

trust between inmates and staff can be achieved given reasonable

initial selection from both groups. Our experience further leads

us to conclude that, once established, peer pressure operates to

maintain such a program environment. Once operating, it is no

longer necessary to be quite so selective. When most inmates on

a unit have had prosocial values, the occasional 'solid con'

could be introduced and it would tend to be the individual rather

than the group who changed. Thus, in developing such programs

careful selection is crucial in the short term; long term, it

simply becomes desirable.

MINIMIZING INSTITUTIONALIZATION

•••

As mentioned, 20% (6) of the charter members of the LifeServers

began their sentences prior to their 18th birthdays. This

proportion of young inmates has remained relatively constant

across the total of lifers which the institution has housed since

1976. These individuals are of special interest. Their lack of

alternative life-experiences to prison, their 'dependent status

immediately prior to incarceration, and their coming-of-age in a

penitentiary environment would all appear to make them

particularly vulnerable to institutionalization. Their number is

small. We have no hard data demonstrating that differences were

not due to pre-existing individual differences. Nonetheless,

23

some clinical observations may be of_special significance in

relation to the issues of institutionalization and prisonization.

Three of the six young inmates were sentenced in the mid-1960s

and served substantial initial proportions of their sentences in

traditional penitentiaries. The remaining three, sentenced in

the early 1970s, were transferred to Warkworth after only a short

reception-period in maximum security. The former served

1.78-times their minimum period to parole eligibility; the

latter, 0.83-times their minimum period before being placed in

the community. Their remaining time was (or is being) served in

community correctional centres. In addition to the 'saving of

virtually the entire period to parole-eligibility, the latter

group also served substantially more of their total time in

relatively low-cost minimum security (20% versus 2.5%). Apart

from humanistic objectives, based upon these small groups one

might conclude that a good case exists for an economic argument

favouring program-oriented long-term incarceration.

The foregoing suggests that the three young inmates who were

provided program-oriented incarceration suffered less

institutionalization than the three subjected to substantial

periods in traditional penitentiaries. This accords well with

clinical judgement. There were no obvious differences in

intellect. None of the six would be described as a

'trouble-maker' by prison standards. Though the former group

24

might sometimes have been considered impulsive, essentially they

worked consistently toward release. Two of the three completed

high school. All acquired trade certificates and skills saleable

in the community. One spent his first year after release

attending a social services course at university. Conversely,

the latter group seemed less impùlsive and more predictable.

They were also easier to deal with in the sense that they made

fewer demands on staff. They might best be described as

emotionally isolated, apathetic and difficult to motivate. None

acquired trade skills while incarcerated, though one did

substantially improved skills he possessed prior to incarceration

and would probably be considered an artisan. One of the

individuals who failed and was reincarcerated was a member of

this group.« In fact, the other individual who also failed missed

being included only by a few months on the age—criterion. Each

of the former could be adequately represented as having played

the 'head game'. Each of the latter could be as well described

as having served 'one day at a time waiting for release. In my

judgement, a large measure of the difference between these two

small groups can be ascribed to the members of the latter having

learned 'passivity' as a coping strategy in traditional settings.

This 'learned passiveness' did not facilitate their return to

normal society. In terms both of time served and human values,

they paid dearly for their aquired behaviours and beliefs; in

relative dollars, so did the society which segregated them.

25

The majority (67 7.) of long-term __inmates are first

incarcerates[26] who have no previous experience with our

institutions, their practices or with the parole process. They

are admitted with little knowledge of what to anticipate or

expect. A number have commented that when they were sentenced to

spend "the rest of your natural life in penitentiary", they

thought that the judgement meant precisely that. At the time of

their admission they "just wanted to shut everything out - do

their time - escape if they can"[16]. Currently, these naive

newcomers are again being classified to the most restrictive

institutions where they are having minimal contact with staff

while getting their primary orientation from the worst of the

system's failures. The development of their initial attitudes

toward prison is highly predictable, as are the behaviours and

coping strategies they are likely to be introduced to. Clearly,

if there Is an advantage to having long-term inmates learn 'how

to do time productively, the process should begin early before

contradictory attitudes and behaviours become ingrained and

habitual. In the provision of role models, it would make better

sense to utilize successful inmates rather than chronic failures.

In this regard, it would appear wise to separate those classified

to maximum security by virtue of 'sentence alone' from those so

classified by virtue of attitude and behaviour.

THE ISSUE OF DISCRETE UNITS FOR LONG-TERM INMATES

It has been noted that one-third of the charter LifeServers

members were housed on one range and that psychosocial advantages

26

accrued as a consequence of that arrangement._ Notwithstanding,

the majority of the prisons staff were not enthusiastic about

long-term inmate units. Though some dissented, the majority

seemed of the opinion that it was advantageous to them in the

performance of their duties to distribute the long-term inmates

equally throughout the prison. Most seemed to feel that the

long-termers provided a stabilizing influence and they preferred

this influence distributed rather than concentrated on single

ranges. Further, it was acknowledged that when long-term inmates

were housed together their cooperation and behaviOur juietifid

privileges which were not generally available. There was some

difficulty in rationally insisting upon the enforcement of

unnecessary rules or the denial of deserved privileges for this

group. Alternatively, there was concern about the precedent of

moderating rules or privileges for a single range.

A number of authors have considered how best to house long-term

inmates. Each has concluded the most desirable arrangement would

seem to involve housing them together in discrete units within

existing prisons [4; 6; 7; 17]. Also, this appears to be the

solution most favoured by inmates [10; 19]. It avoids the ghetto

institutions implied by the designation of entire prisons to

serve this population; nonetheless, it still permits the

long-termers to avoid the frustrations of milieus created for and

dominated by short-term inmates. It further allows for special

programs, the utilization of specially trained staff and the

27

evolution of a distinctive prosocial perspective toward the

serving of time. Housed in this fashion, the long-termers would

be free to form the types of relationships and support groups

desirable when serving long time while still retaining access to

the diversified general prison environment. There should be no

loss to the prison as a whole. The institutions should continue

to benefit from the long-termers contributions to both prison

stability and prison programs. Further in this regard, it would

be argued that if contributions to stability are legitimately the

role of long-term inmates then these should be established in

program-mode and not simply handled informally within cellblocks.

The idea of discrete units may challenge the premise that all

inmates within a single institution must be treated exactly

alike; however, this assertion appears oversimplified. For

example, within our Prison for Women we have, for years, operated

with the inmates classified individually by security level but

all housed within the same penitentiary. Similarly, the Federal

Bureau of Prisons in the U.S. has successfully experimented with

'Functional Unit Programming' where residential groups have been

formed on the basis of treatment needs and, in fact, treated

differently according to those needs. Flanagan[6] addressed this

issue using the analogy of a hospital. He pointed out that it is

not presumed that all hospital patients require the same kind or

level of care. Wards are organized according to both patients'

needs and the level of care necessary. Staff are assigned to

28

A similar model units on the basis of interest and expertise. _

should perform satisfactorily in our prisons.

The development of mutual support networks among long-term

inmates deserves further comment. Generally, it is an issue

about which the prisoners themselves are apprehensive but which

they find to be advantageous when they overcome their misgivings.

The traditional inmate belief-system produces loneliness, a

sparsity of friendly and caring relationships, the alienation of

inmates, one from another, and demands to constantly play a

'cool', detached and noncaring role. Our quasi-experiments both

with long-term ranges and the LifeServers group clearly suggest

that, first, this element of the inmate code can be rather easily

broken down and, second, that there are advantages to long-term

inmates when this is accomplished. Our more comprehensive

efforts wrth long-term ranges have produced quiet and troube-free

units on which the inmates have respected each others rights

while simultaneously offering each other both understanding and

support. Feelings of isolation and alienation have been

relatively unknown. Friendships have carried through the

sentences to the time of release. Those paroled earliest have

helped their later-released peers financially, vocationally and

with general moral support. One group of six, for example, have

gotten together four times in the past three years to help one of

their number celebrate his marriage. They are now planning a

fifth 'reunion' for one of the remaining bachelors. As a group,

29

they take pride in having 'helped each other ... through'.

PRISON ARCHITECTURE - FURTHER COMMENTS ON HOUSING LONG-TERM INMATES

Johnson[8] commented that, "the history of prison architecture

stands as discouraging testament of our sometimes intentional,

sometimes accidental degradation of our fellow man". 'In the case

of modern prisons he asserts that, "structures have continued to

be built in a way which manages by one means or another to

brutalize their occupants and to deprive them of their privacy,

dignity and self-esteem". He concludes there is a need for

prisons designed with an understanding of the pressures and

consequences of group living in institutions.

Reflect upon living in the same undecorated, 7-foot x 10-foot

space for 10, 15, 20 or even 25 years with simply a small, hard

cot, a poor quality desk, a sink, and a seatless, lidless toilet.

Quickly, it becomes obvious that 'segregation from society is

not the sole punishment. For long-term inmates especially, a

humanistic case can be made for cells sufficiently spacious to

permit them to be furnished and arranged as comfortable

bed-sitting rooms. The environment should be 'naturalized';

that is, it should provide the nearest normal living conditions

which are consistent with tangible security concerns.

Nagel[12] has described having "criss-crossed this nation [the

U.S.] looking at its newer prisons - over a hundred of

them [and becoming] somewhat sensitized to the effects of

30

the physical environment upon the individual!!._ He concluded that

nonhumane design - if it doesn't actually cause prison violence

at least enables it to happen. Humane design, on th. otheï hâfid i

appears to Nagel to be associated with both low levels of prison

violence and high levels of morale among both inmates and staff.

As an example of humane design, he describes the Purdy Treatment

Centre for Women in the State of Washington, saying:

Individual rooms are decorated to the tastes of the occupants. Colorful bedspreads and draperies personalize their quarters, which are comfortably furnished. Each grouping of sixteen rooms has a carpeted parlour complete with comfortable living room furniture, television, and a handsome fireplace. Adjoining the day room is a dinette for snacks, furnished with stove, refrigerator, and a coffee percolator. The women hold keys to their rooms. The entire environment spoke the words trust, individuality, and beauty and the view from the rooms echoed them.

Finally, _Megargee[11] has addressed the relationship between

behaviour in prison and the space provided by traditional prison

architecture. This investigator related disciplinary incidents

to 'density over a three-year period of time during which the

density fluctuated as a result of a reconstruction program. The

density-index was calculated by dividing the dormitory and

shared-space available in any month by the mean number of inmates

housed that month. Over the three-year period the prisons

density ranged from a high of 55.41 sq. ft./inmate to a low of

77.62 sq. ft./inmate. Both the frequency and rate of

infractions were found to be correlated with the density. High

density was associated with high rates of disciplinary offenses.

1

31

Even the low density in the above study compares unfavourably

with Warkworth. Our general inmates have 125.90 sq. ft./inmate

of personal and shared space. We are compar4bi@ go Ow Êlgem

above only in our Reception area where the inmates have only

58.15 sq. ft. However, Warkworth compares unfavourably with

conditions outside prison. It is relatively unusual in this

society to find situations where individuals live in less than

about 250 sq. ft. Institutions for the aged, for example, are

usually designed with 300-500 sq. ft./resident. On@ mielit

conclude that space in prison has been more determined by the

history of prison architecture than by concern about what is

normative in contemporary society. It may be that this becomes

of concern only when we think in terms of prisons designed to

accommodate such human factors as privacy, dignity and

self-esteem. Such emphasis may represent concern regarding "the

pressures and consequences of group living in institutions"[8].

Previously it was noted that a high proportion of long-term

are well-adjusted in prison and cause few problems.

Typically, they are not considered for minimum security due to

the absence of separation between those institutions and their

surrounding communities. In other respects, however, many of the

long-term inmates appear to be good candidates for the better

housing conditions, the increased responsibility and the reduced

level of supervision associated with minimum settings. Given the

above, and recognizing the recommendation that long-term inmates

inmates

32

be housed in 'discrete units' within existing_prisons, one would

then infer that these discrete units might well mirror the

conditions found in minimum security farms and camps.

Furthermore, the possibility of earning one's admission into such

a 'naturalized environment while in prison may be seen as

potentially one of the motivators needed for the ever-increasing

population of long-term inmates.

The current cost of construction of traditionally-styled cell

blocks approximates $50,000 per cell. New housing in Canada

typically costs about $45.00 sq. ft. If one considers housing

selected long-term inmates in contemporary styled quarters within

secure, P.I.D.S. protected perimeters then, at $45.00 sq. ft. X

250 sq. ft./inmate, the cost of additional cells could be as low

as $11,000 each. Given the major cell shortage anticipated in

Canadas penitentiaries in the immediate future, the possibility

seems one that should be actively investigated.

The architectural style envisioned would be similar to that used

for housing children in residential treatment. Such cottages

generally include a dayroom, a games room, a kitchenette and a

multi-purpose dining/conversation/snack area. The back of such

units is typically 'split', having eight bedrooms each up a

half-story and down a half-story. There is usually a basement

under the front which is utilized for laundry, arts, crafts and

hobby general-purpose space and for limited in-home recreation.

1 1

33

Within such units each resident would keep_the key to his own

room. The decorating of personal space would be an individual

responsibility. The refurnishing or decorating of conimunal apace

would involve a shared responsibility to which residents would

contribute ideas and money equally through residence committees.

More than economical to build and operate, such units would also

facilitate rather than frustrate the serving of long sentences.

'NATURALIZING - THE PRISON ENVIRONMENT

In order to 'naturalize the prison environment for long—term

inmates one would start by developing the 'time—framed sentence'

or 'prison career' concept so as to initially provide the inmates

with access to sources of personal satisfaction, self—esteem and

status through academic development and employment. One would

then attempt . to reinforce acceptable behaviour and career

achievement by providing access to living situations which ed.

provide further opportunities for personal satisfaction. Such

living units would look like contemporary houses; they would

provide adequate personal space, both private and individualized;

and they would make provision for communal space which

encourages, if not a family lifestyle, at least a friendly

boarding—house lifestyle. To the largest degree possible such

units would be inmate self—governed. Those decisions which can

be made by residence committees should be; consultation should

be developed relative to the decisions which authorities reserve

to themselves. Also, to the maximum extent feasible, 'moral

suasion' should be made the primary administrative technique,

34

replacing threats and coerciveness. Our experience with staff at

Warkworth leads us to conclude that we have no shortage of

correctional officers capable of supervising inmates in

mutually-respectful fashion under such conditions. Staff members

should be selected for these units on the basis of both interest

and the ability to work effectively in such a milieu.

Such items as furniture, personal clothing, aquaria, plants and

individual garden plots should be approved in order to increase

the number of opportunities for the expression of individuality.

One might also consider the approval of such personal pets as

birds in order to permit the inmates some long-term interests

other than themselves upon which to focus. Such pets are being

successfully used with long-termers in a number of U.S. forensic

psychiatric facilities. It is reported that the pets appear to ob.

be extremely beneficial in combatting depression and providing

the inmates with renewed interest in their surroundings[27].

Granting the privilege of ownership as a means of encouraging the

expression of individuality implies that there should also be

some mechanism for transfer of ownership. If an inmate decides

to improve his living quarters by making or purchasing new

furniture then he should be permitted to either sell or give away

his old furniture to any other resident who desires it. Such a

process is simply a logical extension of the concept of

'naturalizing the environment. Further, procedures should be

35

developed which would permit the residents..to order personal

items, snacks and foodstuffs directly from some outside supplier

on a regular basis. Thus, the residents wedà hâti@ eh@ @iiim

variety and choice of personal items and snacks as are available

to free citizens. Like free citizens, the inmates should have

the obligation to be financially responsible for their choices.

The separation from family and friends is reported by the

LifeServers to be a never—ending concern. Similarly, 'oh

British and American long—term inmates have reported that

'missing family'[18] and 'loss of social life'[5] are among the

major problems which they experience in prison. It has further

been suggested that our prisons should be designed to

...'contain the offender without further weakening his ties

with the community n [23]. In 'this regard, as is the case now in fa.

minimum security, the residents of these long—term units should

have access to pay—telephones under minimal supervision. They

should also be permitted to have their weekend visits in the unit

dayroom, or in nice weather, in the unit compound. Further

mirroring minimum conditions, visitors should be permitted to

bring in picnic lunches and there should be no restrictions

governing the 'sharing' of visits. One advantages of this for

long—term inmates is that individuals who have few remaining

community contacts are often involved by their more fortunate

peers with their visitors. This process should be encouraged.

36

Finally, with provision in the design_ for both laundry and

general purpose space, the care and maintenana4 of p@rme 1§âilê

or possessions should become entirely an individual matter.

Laundry, for example, would become a personal responsibility in

this jail, as it is on the outside. Similarly, if an inmate

chose not to decorate his personal space, it would not be done

for him. The maintenance of personal quarters at lower than

suitable standards would be essentially a group or casework

issue, not subject to resolution by 'doing it for the resident'.

A PROCESS-ORIENTED APPROACH TO LONG-TERM INCARCERATION

Since Bill C-84 was passed in 1976, long-term incarceration has

become a growth industry in Canada. On July 25th, 1976, there

were approximately 775 inmates serving life sentences in Canadian

penitentiaries. By 1983 their number had increased by over 60%

to 1,275[3]. The total is expected to rise further to 1,975 by

the year 2001 when the first of the 25-year-minimum lifer$

becomes eligible for parole; it is expected that by the turn of

the century one inmate in five in federal correctional

institutions will be serving a life sentence[22].

Part of the projected increase will result from the new, longer

25-year-minimum sentences. A second proportion will be due to

the fact that our judicial system is more inclined to charge and

convict offenders with the new first-degree murder category than

was the case previously for capital murder. This is illustrated

by the vast discrepancy between the number of capital murder

37

convictions in the seven years prior to the Criminal Law

Amendment Act (15) and the number of the first.edegr@@ gOnViEtielg

in the seven years since (260). Obviously, a conviction for

first-degree murder is approximately 18 times more likely now

than was the case for capital murder seven years ago.

Finally, the most substantial proportion of the increase appears

the result of what may have been an unintended secondary effect

of the Peace and Security legislation. Whereas previously

plea-bargaining invariably produced manslaughter verdicts, it now

often results in second-degree murder convictions which imply a

5-times longer period of incarceration[15]. From the vantage

point of a penitentiary psychologist, it seems the law which

Parliament intended should deal with our most heinous homicides,

premeditated murder, has in practice ended up dealing relatively

more harshly with the less shocking end of the homicide spectrum.

The increased use of long-term incarceration, together with the

increased length of sentences, implies both an increasing

financial burden on taxpayers and ever-increasing human costs in

our penitentiaries. Given the trends, it would appear incumbent

upon correctional administrators to actively investigate

institutional alternatives designed to deal with these inmates

economically, humanely, and, of course, in a fashion which

assures their continued custody. It has been argued elsewhere

[15] that a process-oriented approach to selected long-term

38

inmates can provide appropriate security, is more humane, and

costs very substantially less than does the security.=oil@flt@ii

alternative. The process should begin in maximum security

virtually at the time of admission. The scheduling of the

elements in the process should be consistent with what is known

about the adaptation of long-term inmates to prison (see Figure

II). More research, better classification practices, appropriato

programs early in the process, time-framed prison careers,

mutual-support groups amongst the inmates themselves and

'naturalized prison environments are the keystones of such a

process. Though there is no denying that maximum security may be

the only answer for some long-term inmates, it is equally clear

that it is not required for all, nor even for most. Given the

successful experiences which we have had in programming lifers;

given also the knowledge "that very little can be observed to set me,

this group [of first-degree murderers] apart from others,

particularly from previous lifers with shorter periods of parole

ineligibility"[26]; then, it appears that the techniques for

managing these cases humanely, economically and securely are

available and that it would be beneficial to refine them, to

further develop them and to implement them more widely.

The foregoing is based largely upon experience with men serving

10-year minimum life; it appears equally relevant, however, to

those with longer periods of parole ineligibility. Recent

experience tells us that these individuals are not without hope.

39

Most appear to have spontaneously refocused their sights on their

15th year judicial reviews. In effect, they hilv@ AdiÊi@d th@if

time perspective into a realm close to which we do have both

familiarity and expertise. The challenge for corrections will be

to use that experience to assist these inmates to maintain their

hopes and their legitimate goals.

1

1 1 1 1 1

1

40

References

1. Alper, Benedict S. Prisons Inside-Out: Alternatives in Correctional Reform. Cambridge, Mass.: Bellinger Publishing, 1974.

2. Clemmer, Donald. The Prison Community. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1940.

3. Correctional Service of Canada. Population Profile Report, March 31. 1983. Ottawa: C.S.C. Information Services, 1983.

4. Corves, Erich. "Adverse results of long prison terms and the possibilities of counteracting them." in Levy, R., Rizkalla, S., and Zauberman, R. [Eds.] Long • Term Imprisonment: An International Seminar. Montreal: Univ. of Montreal, 1977.

5. Flanagan, Timothy J. "The pains of long-term imprisonment: A comparison of British and American perspectives." Brit. J. Criminol., 1980, 20(2), 148-156.

6. Flanagan, Timothy J. "Correctional policy and the long-term prisoner." Crime and Delinquency, January, 1982, 82-95.

7. Hale,

Michael. "Long-Term imprisonment: Policy considerations and program options." The Correctional Service of Canada, Offender Programs Branch. Ottawa: January, 1984.

8. Johnson, Norman The Human Cage: A brief history of prison architecture. New York: Walker and Company, 1973.

9. Kubler-Ross, Elizabeth. On Death and Dying. New York: MacMillan, 1969.

10. Lifers in Warkworth Institution. "Programs for long-term offenders: Sentenced to life! To endure it or to find it?" Warkworth Institution, November, 1976.

11. Megargee, Edwin, I. "Population density and disruptive behavior in a prison setting." in Cohen, Albert K., Cole, George F., and Bailey, Albert G. [Eds.] Prison Violence. Toronto: Lexington Books, 1976, 135-144.

1

1 16. Palmer,

41

12. Nagel, William G. "Prison architecture and prison violence." in Cohen, Albert K., Cole, George FO, 4n4 Robert G. [Eds.] Prison Violence. Tornnt01 Books, 1976, 105-113.

13. National Parole Board Statistical Liaison Officer: "Re: Capital and Non-capital Murderers." Ottawa: December, 1983.

14. Palmer,

William R. "Inmate-assisted programs at Warkworth Institution". Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the Ontario Psychological Association. Toronto: February, 1980.

II 15. Palmer, William R. "Programs for Long-Term Inmates: A process-oriented approach for the Ontario region and a pilot proposal for Warkworth Institution." The

Correctional Service of Canada, Offender Programs Branch. Ottawa: April, 1984(a).

William R. "Maintaining community ties for long-term inmates: A 'Day of Awareness' for families." Warkworth Institution: 1984b.

II 17. Radzinowicz, Sir L. "The regime for long-term prisoners in conditions of maximum security. Report of the Advisory

II HMSO, 1968. Council on the Penal System. London: Home Office,

18. Richards, Barry. "The experience of long-term imprisonment."

II ,Brit. J. of Criminol., 1978, 18(2), 162-169.

19. Sakowski, Marie H. "Preliminary report on long-term offenders."

II Correctional Services of Canada, R.H.Q.(Prairies), 1983.

20. Selznick, Phillip. "Forward to" Studt, Elliot, Messinger,

II Community in Prison. New York: Sage Foundation, 1968. Sheldon L., and Wilson, Thomas, P. C-Unit: Search for

21. Toch, Hans. "The long-term prisoner as a long-term problem."

II in Levy, R., Rizkalla, S., and Zauberman, R. [Eds.] Long-Term Imprisonment: An International Seminar. Montreal: U. of Montreal, 1977, 283-291.

II 22. Vantour, J. "Long-term inmates on the increase." Lets Talk, April 30, 1983.

I 23. Waller, Irving, Men Released from Prison. Toronto: U. of Toronto Press, 1974.

1

JAN 5 1989

MNSTE _ r

42

24. West,

Donald J. Murder Followed by Suicide. Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press, 1967.

25. Zink, T.M. "Are prison troublemakero diffeifeion gewEed_al Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Scieiêê, IYCb, 48(4), 433-434.

26. Zubricki, Richard M. "Long-term incarceration in Canada." Paper presented at the Second World Congress on Prison Health Care. Ottawa: August, 1983.

27. Personal Communication: Dave Lee, Lima State Prison Hospital. Lima, Ohio.

•••

e .

LoriARY MINISTRY OF THE SOLICITOR

GENERAL OF CANADA

DATE DUE

Palmer, William R.T. Programming far lcng tem inmates : a new pe.rsFec-tive.

Hi 8708 P3p 1984 c. 3